You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews—paper 2: defining complexity, formulating scope, and questions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.012 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael P. Kelly, Jane Noyes, Robert L. Kane, Christine Chang, Stacey Uhl, Karen A. Robinson, Stacey Springs, Mary E. Butler, Jeanne-Marie Guise |
| Abstract |
The early stages of a systematic review set the scope and expectations. This can be particularly challenging for complex interventions given their multi-dimensional and dynamic nature. This paper builds on concepts introduced in Paper 1 of this series. It describes the methodological, practical and philosophical challenges and potential approaches for formulating the questions and scope of systematic reviews of complex interventions. Further it discusses the use of theory to help organize reviews of complex interventions. Many interventions in medicine, public health, education, social services, behavioral health, and community programs are complex, and they may not fit neatly within the established paradigm for reviews of straight-forward interventions. This paper provides conceptual and operational guidance for these early stages of scope formulation to assist authors of systematic reviews of complex interventions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 21% |
| Colombia | 2 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Germany | 1 | 7% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 43% |
| Members of the public | 4 | 29% |
| Scientists | 2 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 110 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 14% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Librarian | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 22 | 20% |
| Unknown | 28 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 9% |
| Psychology | 8 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 21% |
| Unknown | 31 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,516,147
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#1,580
of 4,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,346
of 324,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
#18
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.